IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #6

[jeena]

How many seconds was CW by the window and out the window? If she was by the window for 19 seconds and out the window for a five seconds, SA could still use the defense he thought glass was there and leaned forward so CW could bang on it, but she was gone in a few seconds. Personal injury attorneys usually don't take cases they can't win, so there must be something tangible their case is hinging on.

 

[neesaki]

How many seconds was CW by the window and out the window? If she was by the window for 19 seconds and out the window for a five seconds, SA could still use the defense he thought glass was there and leaned forward so CW could bang on it, but she was gone in a few seconds. Personal injury attorneys usually don't take cases they can't win, so there must be something tangible their case is hinging on.

How would he explain his head down to his shoulders out the window before he put Chloe out? Let me think.......

 

[justice4allnow]

"Common experience dictates that a person can fall through any open window, regardless of design, if they lean out too far, because a window is a purposeful opening in a structure for light and air. This is not a dangerous condition but an apparent and obvious feature of any window. As the cited case law supports, a shipowner is entitled to assume that a passenger will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own senses." RC states it simply, clearly. Hope this suit is quickly dismissed.

 

[jeena]

How many seconds was CW by the window and out the window? If she was by the window for 19 seconds and out the window for a five seconds, SA could still use the defense he thought glass was there and leaned forward so CW could bang on it, but she was gone in a few seconds. Personal injury attorneys usually don't take cases they can't win, so there must be something tangible their case is hinging on.

How would he explain his head down to his shoulders out the window before he put Chloe out? Let me think.......

How would he explain his head down to his shoulders out the window before he put Chloe out? Let me think.......

DBM

 

[jeena]

"Common experience dictates that a person can fall through any open window, regardless of design, if they lean out too far, because a window is a purposeful opening in a structure for light and air. This is not a dangerous condition but an apparent and obvious feature of any window. As the cited case law supports, a shipowner is entitled to assume that a passenger will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own senses." RC states it simply, clearly. Hope this suit is quickly dismissed.

B

"Common experience dictates that a person can fall through any open window, regardless of design, if they lean out too far, because a window is a purposeful opening in a structure for light and air. This is not a dangerous condition but an apparent and obvious feature of any window. As the cited case law supports, a shipowner is entitled to assume that a passenger will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own senses." RC states it simply, clearly. Hope this suit is quickly dismissed.

Good points! Let's RCCL off the hook for no warning signage on the railings also.

 

[MsMarple]

PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PREVENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE HEARING

CASE NO. 19-CV-25100 DLG WIEGAND VS RCCL

FILED 1/7/2020

also

WITHDRAWAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PREVENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE HEARING AND STIPULATION OF PARTIES

FILED 1/8/2020

withdrawal is not that interesting just says that they finally agreed to meet the ship in Barbados to inspect it without their "experts" just including this so that people can see the issue was settled

Thanks, @Kindred! I'm woefully behind still but I've looked at a couple of the files you posted.

At this point I'm ready to accept that SA did indeed hold Chloe outside the window. Without reading it from the horse's mouth (RCCL and their clearer video) I never would have thought he put her further out than the railing. How reckless!

But now I'm satisfied that he did. The only remaining question I have is why the DA didn't charge him with manslaughter but I guess it's going to be a quick conviction for negligent homicide. It may even be that the DA has some sympathy with SA in that he did lose his granddaughter and only wants to be sure he is punished if only with a short prison term. I dunno, that's only a guess.

Anyway, now I'm seeing red; SA needs to pay for his crime no matter how long the PR court sentences. And the family is... well, I won't say anything right now other than I hope the civil case is dismissed. MOO.

 

[jeena]

"Common experience dictates that a person can fall through any open window, regardless of design, if they lean out too far, because a window is a purposeful opening in a structure for light and air. This is not a dangerous condition but an apparent and obvious feature of any window. As the cited case law supports, a shipowner is entitled to assume that a passenger will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own senses." RC states it simply, clearly. Hope this suit is quickly dismissed.

"Common experience dictates that a person can fall through any open window, regardless of design, if they lean out too far, because a window is a purposeful opening in a structure for light and air. This is not a dangerous condition but an apparent and obvious feature of any window. As the cited case law supports, a shipowner is entitled to assume that a passenger will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own senses." RC states it simply, clearly. Hope this suit is quickly dismissed.

Good points, takes RCCL off the hook for having warning signs on the railings also.

 

[MsMarple]

They're in denial. They don't want to know exactly how reckless Grandpa was with their little girl. Time for Chloe's parents to stop blaming RCCL for SA's decision to hold the toddler outside a window 11 stories above the pier!

I agree. I feel like the family juggled SA's interests/potential money from the civil case against justice for Chloe. Guess which lost? Still catching up...

 

[BeachSky]

I bet he takes the plea deal which is no jail time.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...rom-cruise-ship-offered-plea-deal-lawyer/amp/
The deal would include no jail time, Perez said.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

I bet he takes the plea deal which is no jail time.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...rom-cruise-ship-offered-plea-deal-lawyer/amp/
The deal would include no jail time, Perez said.

If SA rejected the plea deal once, would he have to go to trial?

 

[MsMarple]

How many seconds was CW by the window and out the window? If she was by the window for 19 seconds and out the window for a five seconds, SA could still use the defense he thought glass was there and leaned forward so CW could bang on it, but she was gone in a few seconds. Personal injury attorneys usually don't take cases they can't win, so there must be something tangible their case is hinging on.

RBBM
The bolded is why I had such a hard time accepting for so long that SA actually held Chloe outside the window. I have many lawyers in my family, including four in South Florida and some who practice Personal Injury. I know from them that they would not take on an unwinnable case and certainly would not misrepresent the facts in order to win a wrongful death case. I guess I mistakenly believed that all attorneys from large firms would do the same but apparently I was wrong. Note to self - don't judge other attorneys by the ethics of my family members.

Though I doubt Winkleman will be sanctioned by his misrepresentation of the facts the court does have the power to do so. Knowing what I know from following this case IMO he should be sanctioned. IMO Winkleman needs to learn that misrepresenting the facts in a wrongful death case is serious and doing so can damage his reputation.

 

[Forever Young]

If SA rejected the plea deal once, would he have to go to trial?

I thought it was stated that nothing in writing had been offered yet. If he rejects it, I would think he would then go to trial.

 

[Forever Young]

I think SA will maintain that he thought there was glass there. But if the Wiegands themselves could not have anticipated that he was color-blind and couldn't see glass, how could RCCL have anticipated that?

Perhaps that line of thought will get the Wiegands' civil case tossed out. SA can still pursue his claim of no negligence.

 

[BeachSky]

If SA rejected the plea deal once, would he have to go to trial?

In the article it says he would mull over the offer.

“Perez said, though added his client would still mull over the offer, “

I think you can take a plea deal right up until the trial starts. I have no idea, JMO

 

[Chikkamma]

I think SA will maintain that he thought there was glass there. But if the Wiegands themselves could not have anticipated that he was color-blind and couldn't see glass, how could RCCL have anticipated that?

Perhaps that line of thought will get the Wiegands' civil case tossed out. SA can still pursue his claim of no negligence.

I agree that SA has locked himself into the lie that he thought there was glass. There's no going back now... it would look make him look 10x worse if he only now admitted he knew the window was open and has been knowingly lying to his family and the media for months.

His opportunity to come clean has long passed IMO. He will stick to his invisible glass story till the end now.

 

[Tutter]

I gasp every time I see how HIGH he lifted Chloe up and out the opening! Why, why would he do that!?

 

[jeena]

RBBM
The bolded is why I had such a hard time accepting for so long that SA actually held Chloe outside the window. I have many lawyers in my family, including four in South Florida and some who practice Personal Injury. I know from them that they would not take on an unwinnable case and certainly would not misrepresent the facts in order to win a wrongful death case. I guess I mistakenly believed that all attorneys from large firms would do the same but apparently I was wrong. Note to self - don't judge other attorneys by the ethics of my family members.

Though I doubt Winkleman will be sanctioned by his misrepresentation of the facts the court does have the power to do so. Knowing what I know from following this case IMO he should be sanctioned. IMO Winkleman needs to learn that misrepresenting the facts in a wrongful death case is serious and doing so can damage his reputation.

Imagine if the Wiegands lost their daughter and the case because of SA's negligence and lies.

SA could have admitted to the Wiegands and Winks he knew the window was open, but they went ahead with the lawsuit anyway for the money.

 

[al66pine]

Possible Plea Agreement. What Defense Atty Says?

In the article it says he would mull over the offer. “Perez said, though added his client would still mull over the offer, “
I think you can take a plea deal right up until the trial starts. I have no idea, JMO

@BeachSky. Info has come from def atty, so consider the source. That plus what he said. "...Jose Perez, said that his client was offered a plea deal, but that he would rather clear his name..." Nothing concrete from prosecutor re a poss deal w no/little prison time, AFAIK.
https://nypost.com/2019/12/18/grand...nd-from-cruise-ship-offered-plea-deal-lawyer/

Respectfully disagreeing, re prosecutor's offer of plea deal being available until trial. More likely, no, imo.
In early days after arrest & charge, before prosecution staff has spent a 'stuff'-ton of hours on case, may explore possible plea deal w defendant/def atty. & likely to specify deadline for acceptance.
But as trial approaches and staff has spent extensive time on case and has found no significant or unforeseen problems or weakness in case, generally less likely to be inclined to make/continue offer. And could uncover more evd against def, so why leave open an offer until trial?

 

[Forever Young]

RBBM
The bolded is why I had such a hard time accepting for so long that SA actually held Chloe outside the window. I have many lawyers in my family, including four in South Florida and some who practice Personal Injury. I know from them that they would not take on an unwinnable case and certainly would not misrepresent the facts in order to win a wrongful death case. I guess I mistakenly believed that all attorneys from large firms would do the same but apparently I was wrong. Note to self - don't judge other attorneys by the ethics of my family members.

Though I doubt Winkleman will be sanctioned by his misrepresentation of the facts the court does have the power to do so. Knowing what I know from following this case IMO he should be sanctioned. IMO Winkleman needs to learn that misrepresenting the facts in a wrongful death case is serious and doing so can damage his reputation.

JMO, trying to look at this the way an impartial judge or jury would -

The RCCL document, which was very well crafted, stating that SA held her out the window is only a document stating that, the same way almost everyone who has seen the video says. It did not PROVE that by measurement SA was out that window, or that the baby was outside the window until she fell forward.

Thinking about that, this may be where RCCL has stated something as a fact that is not known to be a fact, unless there is a video from outside the ship showing it.

As for Winkleman, he "represents" the Wiegands. IMO it is a little unfair to pin the misrepresentation all on him, when he is only acting as the voice of his clients and can only say what they have told him and approve of.

With all that said, IMO again, AW and SA knew from the beginning that SA was negligent here. SW made a statement to the police, AW supposedly made a statement to the press. It is KW that cannot accept what happened. The other two are deferring to her grief, and afraid to say "no".

Could be Winkleman also is deferring to her, since she is also an attorney, and he knows that if he didn't take the case, another attorney would.

 

[neesaki]

Maybe there should be no civil suits like this immediately following such a tragedy, and so early in the grieving process. A waiting period might be not such a bad idea. Oh well.